[talk-au] place now remoteness rendering
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu May 5 02:26:22 UTC 2016
On 5/05/2016 10:35 AM, Ben Kelley wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> The remoteness doesn't need to change the definition of the place
> (e.g. make a hamlet a town) but rather only change how it is rendered.
>
> A very remote track might show, as might a remote hamlet.
>
> I agree this might be difficult to implement in the renderer.
>
Then I think that is a separate issue to tagging.
I have modified the subject to reflect the divergence of subject.
Rendering where a large area is blank (or at least not 'full') I think
the render can go to the next layer and render that .. repeat until
there is enough to display.
This would fill the map with data - making the map more usefull.
> - Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Kelley
> ben.kelley at gmail.com <mailto:ben.kelley at gmail.com>
> Sent from my Windows XP PC
>
> On 5 May 2016 10:26, "Warin" <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Remoteness .. nice!
> It is based on population density .. the same argument I make for
> lowering the population barriers for city/town/village for
> Australia. So, yes, I do like it.
> How far to take the 'remoteness' effect on the population barriers
> to?
> If the area has very little population then 1 person could be
> defined as a city? NO, certain things are expected in a city ..
> certainly more than 1 person!
> So there are limits as to how far to go in this direction.
>
> Would need to revert to
> city>100,000>town>10,000>village>200>hamlet>100
> for 'Major cities' and 'Inner regional' areas -
> as judged by the 'remoteness' thing as I can see no reason not to
> use the world wide population points here as the population
> densities are similar?
> These areas are in close proximity and would be similar around the
> world so the chosen population points should be suitable.
>
> The 'Outer Regional' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>50,000>town>5,000>village>100>hamlet>50
> The 'Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>25,000>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
> The 'Very Remote' areas ... about half the population density so
> city>12,500>town>2,500>village>50>hamlet>25
>
> Err Winton would be come a village .. Longreach becomes a town...
> would that be acceptable?
> I think that works for my perception of those places.
>
> It will add to the complexity but be justifiable technically. Is
> it worth the added complexity?
>
> On 4/05/2016 6:28 PM, Alex Sims wrote:
>> I’ve had an involvement in this discussion in the past and wonder
>> if a way forward might be to include an adjusting factor for
>> remoteness.
>>
>> If you have a look at the map at
>> http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure
>>
>> which shows the Australian Remoteness Index this suggests that we
>> could define town, hamlet, etc according to population but then
>> adjust the population limits downward for remote areas.
>>
>> The other point I’d make (as I did some time ago) is that the
>> labels are “British English” labels and form a hierarchy where
>> the names make sense in the UK but shouldn’t be taken as a slight
>> against any area. They are merely a series of words that define
>> the level of population centre.
>>
>> Looking at
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural
>> this seems to support and adjustment based on remoteness in the
>> Australian context.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>> On 4 May 2016, at 8:11 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/05/2016 12:50 AM, Christopher Barham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03 May 2016, at 14:22, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>> Why judge on the population?
>>>>> Larger populations get more services - Police, Medical,
>>>>> Education ... they go hand in hand.
>>>>> Populations are usually stated - on the entry signs to towns,
>>>>> villages .. and collected by the ABS. So verifiable and
>>>>> accessible.
>>>>> Yes they do change .. but not by vast amounts quickly.
>>>>> Usually the relationship between population centres remains
>>>>> fairly static .. if one grows so do the surrounding ones.
>>>>> Much easier to quickly asses and correctly tag this way. So it
>>>>> satisfies the KISS principle.
>>>> </SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> City is not just a function of population - It’s can also be a
>>>> political appointment/status? - e.g. Charters Towers and
>>>> Redcliffe are cities :
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes there is an 'official designation system' ... subject to
>>> political pressure and separate rules for each state.
>>> I think the best guide we have is the population, certainly I
>>> think it is much better than the officially given 'status'.
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>> I did leave out of the original post that the ABS data may
>>> include more 'cities' with populations over 10,000 than the
>>> present OSM data base contains ... yet to sort that out.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20160505/b8b384cb/attachment.html>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list